what he said was well formed and interpretable
It's just a terrible, inadequate, slimy answer to the question he was given.
Rumsfeld had just said that intelligence showed that Iraq had actively worked on getting chemical weapons out to terrorists. That was support for why the US was actively planning to get involved in Iraq.
If someone then says "Does that evidence actually exist? What is it?"
It is not a good answer to say "There may be evidence out there that we don't know exists yet," when you're getting ready to invade a country.
(
the prick of misery pierced my foot on a spiiiike on, Wed 10 Dec 2014, 17:35,
Reply)